TL;DR
A MoneyWeek report compares two hypothetical UK investors in SpaceX: one bought at the $135 IPO price in June, while another bought at $160.95 after the first day of trading. By the end of October, the first was roughly at break-even in dollar terms, while the second was about 16% down, illustrating how limited access and a higher trading debut price can shape IPO outcomes.
A MoneyWeek report says two hypothetical UK investors who bought SpaceX shares at different points in the company’s June IPO had sharply different results by the end of October: the investor allocated shares at the $135 IPO price was roughly at break-even in dollar terms, while one who bought after the first day at $160.95 was about 16% down. The comparison highlights a practical problem for investors: access to a sought-after IPO price may be limited, and buying once trading begins can mean paying substantially more.
The example contrasts an investor who applied in June and received shares at the IPO price with another who missed that allocation and bought at the end of the first day of trading. MoneyWeek reports that the later purchase price was $160.95 per share, compared with $135 at the IPO. The figures are stated in US dollars.
By the end of October, the investor who bought at $135 was described as having roughly broken even, while the investor who entered at $160.95 was about 16% down. Those are the report’s outcomes for its comparison, not a guarantee of future performance or a complete account of either investor’s returns. The source does not provide details such as fees, taxes, currency-conversion effects or the exact calculation method.
The comparison is about the difference between an IPO allocation and a purchase after public trading began. It does not establish that every IPO behaves this way, or that an IPO’s offer price is a reliable indicator of its value. It shows how a higher entry price can leave a buyer more exposed if the share price later falls.
The Cost of Missing an IPO Allocation
For individual investors, the reported gap underscores that the headline IPO price may not be the price most people can actually pay. Shares offered at the IPO price may be allocated in limited quantities, while investors who buy after trading starts pay the market price available to them. In this example, that meant entering at $160.95 rather than $135.
The outcome matters because IPO coverage can focus attention on a company’s profile or the prospect of early gains, while access and entry price receive less attention. MoneyWeek’s comparison shows why investors should distinguish between being offered shares at the IPO price and deciding to buy after the stock begins trading. The latter carries the risk of paying more than the offer price and then facing a decline.
The figures are a snapshot through the end of October, not a long-term verdict on SpaceX or a prediction about future returns. The report gives no broader sample of IPOs, so the example cannot show how often late buyers lose money. Readers should treat it as a specific illustration of price and access risk, rather than evidence that all sought-after listings follow the same pattern.
Popular right now
Dyson Car+Boat Cordless Handheld Vacuum
Shark AI Ultra Robot Vacuum, Black/Silver, AV2511AE
TCL 65-Inch QM6K QLED Mini-LED 4K HDR Smart Google TV, 144Hz
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From June Offer to October Results
An initial public offering is the sale of shares to investors as a company lists them for public trading. In an IPO, some investors may be able to apply for shares at the offer price; after trading starts, buyers generally transact at the market price. These prices can differ, and an investor’s access to the offer does not necessarily match the experience of someone buying later.
In the MoneyWeek example, the first investor applied in June and received shares at $135 each. The second did not get in at that price and bought at the end of the first day of trading, at $160.95. By the end of October, the report put the first investor roughly at break-even and the second about 16% down, measured in dollar terms.
The source presents this as a comparison of two investors in one company, not as a study of IPO performance across the market. It does not explain the allocation process in detail or say how many shares either investor bought. The distinction between the offer price and the subsequent market price is the relevant context for understanding the reported difference.
„“The first applied in June and got them at the $135 initial public offering (IPO) price. The second missed out and bought at the end of the first day’s trading, at $160.95.”“
— MoneyWeek report
Limits of the Investor Comparison
The report does not give the exact date of publication, the precise end-of-October share price, or the calculation used to arrive at the roughly break-even and 16% figures. It also does not specify whether trading costs, taxes or currency movements are included. As the example is presented in dollar terms, the results may not match the eventual returns of a UK investor measuring performance in pounds.
The source does not establish whether the two investors are real people or illustrative cases beyond describing them as a comparison. Nor does it provide information about allocation size, eligibility, or how likely an applicant was to receive shares at the IPO price. The longer-term performance of the shares and the subsequent experience of other investors are not addressed.
It remains unclear from the supplied report how representative this example is of IPOs generally. One company and two entry points cannot show whether the same pattern is common, or whether a different period would produce a different comparison.
Watch the Price After Listing
The next relevant measure is how SpaceX shares perform after the report’s end-of-October cutoff. That would update the comparison, but it would not by itself establish how representative the example is of other IPOs. The source material does not identify a forthcoming company announcement, regulatory filing or other scheduled milestone.
Investors following the issue can distinguish three figures when reviewing later coverage: the IPO offer price, the price at which trading began or ended on the first day, and the share price at the date of any performance comparison. They would also need to check the measurement period, currency and whether costs are included before comparing reported returns.
For now, the confirmed development in the source is the historical comparison through the end of October. Any claim about later results or the typical performance of IPO buyers would require additional, dated evidence.
Key Questions
What difference did the report describe between the two investors?
The first investor received shares at the $135 IPO price. The second bought at $160.95 at the end of the first trading day. MoneyWeek said that by the end of October the first was roughly at break-even in dollar terms and the second was about 16% down.
Why might investors miss out on an IPO price?
The supplied report says the second investor missed out on the IPO-price purchase, but it does not explain the allocation process or why that investor did not receive shares. It does illustrate that buying after trading starts can mean paying a different market price.
Does the example show that IPOs are generally poor investments?
No. It compares two purchase timings for one company and provides no broader data on IPO returns. It should be read as a specific example of how entry price can affect results, not as evidence about all IPOs.
Are the reported returns in pounds or dollars?
MoneyWeek describes the comparison as being in dollar terms. The source does not give a pound-denominated return or say whether currency-conversion effects were included.
What details are missing from the comparison?
The source does not specify the exact calculation method, fees, taxes, share quantities, allocation odds or the precise end-of-October price. It also does not provide later performance or a wider sample of IPOs.
Source: moneyweek.com
